This is not for a server, rather for a powerful home machine.

Please say why you chose what you did.

Let me give you my basic understanding of dual processors and mabey that will help you decide. When you have dual processors, running a single task does not go any faster, but it is when you are running multiple tasks that the cpu's can then split up the jobs. Basicly if you are loading a webpage, with dual you will more or less do it at the same speed as the processor. But if you load multiple pages, they will both load at the regular speed of the processor, at the same time, instead of one then the other. I know that may sound a tad confusing, but basicly, do you plan on running multiple applications(that need a lot of cpu power) at once. If so, I guess then go with dual. Otherwise just go with a single.

I'd go for the dual 1.2 Ghz :)

Go for single unless you're running 3d rendering programs, or processor intensive tasks like that. Although XP Pro (and 2000) may claim to support dual processors, they're only marginally faster than single processors unless you're running apps specifically optimised for dual processors.

I was under the assumption that you had a choice between a dual or single for the same price. But if the dual is more expensive & you won't be doing anything too intensive then go for the single processor...;)

I voted dual on accident, and i'm sure many other people did too. I didn't see the "for home use" fast enough.

You should NOT get a dual for home use. It will be almost exactly the same speed as most software does not support multiple threads.

Instead focus on the speed and ammount of ram, HD (Might want to get scsi or a 7,200 eide with 8mb cache), and gfx card.

Well, I had a dual cpu system for 2.5 years, now I'm on a single CPU system and I can tell you for sure that I want to go back to dual processors, single CPU just doesn't cut it for me, if an app ties up your CPU then all other apps are left waiting around - with dual cpu system that is rarely a problem.

I miss my dual cpu machine. Sure, was peppy. It was great having multiple apps open and no lag when switching between them.

Originally posted by citrus
I was under the assumption that you had a choice between a dual or single for the same price. But if the dual is more expensive & you won't be doing anything too intensive then go for the single processor...;)

Your assumption was right, the price difference is small (around $100).

So just to get this straight, if the application wasn't optimised for dual processors, I will not gain any speed? How well does load-balancing work?

Is dual processing any different under linux than under windows?

hmm how do you want to build a server with a dual 1.2 ghz cpu? I think the intel tualtin´s are not able to run in dual mode and so there is only the xeon machine.

But anyway, i think you should choose the 2.2ghz solution, it´s the easier and more efficient way.

Andre

Originally posted by AndreT
hmm how do you want to build a server with a dual 1.2 ghz cpu? I think the intel tualtin´s are not able to run in dual mode and so there is only the xeon machine.

But anyway, i think you should choose the 2.2ghz solution, it´s the easier and more efficient way.

Andre

This is going to be a HOME MACHINE. I should've mentioned it in the thread name, sorry. I did mention it in the poll however..

Tualatin does do dual CPU as do normal P3s.

Ok, but i don´t think there is a possibility to put an intel 1,2 into a dual mainboard because as far as i know there isn´t a mainboard with this option. But anyway, i recommend you the 2,2ghz for a home machine, too - you will have more power and less problem with this.

Every hardware-mall says that Tualatin is not able to run in dual-mode. The normal P3 can run, but not the new Tualatin chips. That´s my information about this. Which mainboard should support dual tualatin?

I dunno if this still hold true but (it used to):

Only some (high-end) applications (e.g Photoshop) are actually designed to take advantage of a dual CPU environment , plus you'll need an OS that will also support it.

Most run of the mill applications aren't designed to take advantage of 2 CPUs so it will only work at the speed of one. Just because your OS supports 2 CPU does not mean that all apps you run can use 2 CPU at the same.

Unless you're using it as a server, graphic design, mutlimedia then go with a single CPU set up.

I voted for the Dual. To me, its something new, im used to the single systems. And I would enjoy to have the additional bragging rights with my friends :)

Well I say get dual 2.2ghz chips. :D

Sure, would you like a free lamborghini with that? My budget isn't unlimited :) I'm sure a 2.2ghz with 1.5gb of ram would satisfy me.

I think that would satisfy any geek. :D

Originally posted by Nadav
Sure, would you like a free lamborghini with that? My budget isn't unlimited :) I'm sure a 2.2ghz with 1.5gb of ram would satisfy me.

1.5GB RAM?
I bet your HOME PC won't be a millisecond faster than a 512MB one..

That's pure waste of money!

Not always it isn't, depends what it's been used for. Like my next door neighbour who regularly works on 800Mb PSD files - you try telling him that 512Mb RAM will do :)